AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was involved in a case where she allegedly violated her conditions of release. The State sought to enhance her sentence based on this violation, pursuant to a plea agreement.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in allowing the State to pursue habitual offender proceedings because there was not sufficient evidence of a violation of the plea agreement.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Initially contended that the plea agreement allowed for an enhancement of the Defendant's sentence due to a violation of her conditions of release but later agreed that the plea agreement did not permit such an enhancement.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing the State to pursue habitual offender proceedings based on the Defendant's alleged violation of her conditions of release under the terms of the plea agreement.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to allow the State to seek a habitual offender enhancement based on the Defendant's violation of her conditions of release was reversed.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, concurring): The appellate court initially proposed a summary reversal, suggesting that the plea agreement did not allow for habitual offender proceedings to be initiated based on a violation of the Defendant's conditions of release. The State's response acknowledged that the plea agreement did not, in fact, permit an enhancement of the Defendant's sentence for such a violation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's decision on this basis, aligning with the Defendant's argument and the State's eventual concession.